Deniability

Atrios links to this post by Randy Paul at Beautiful Horizons. It provides a general sense of perspective in light of John Asscrossed testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose subordinates have written confidential legal memorandums seemingly approving of torture, told a Senate committee today that President Bush had "made no order that would require or direct the violation" of either the international treaties or domestic laws prohibiting torture.

Duh--deniability is the hallmark of this administration. Considering the rather limited intellectual capacity--and sheer laziness--of the Commander-in-Chief, it's easy to believe that Bush personally gave no order--in spite of the fact that the now infamous memo urged a presidential imprimatur to provide cover for those who DID cross the line. Asscrossed is splitting legal hairs here. And, while Bush ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer by a long shot, he's not so stupid that he'd sign his name to Exhibit 1 of his impeachment. In the language that counts as official Washingtonese, the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are, for Bush, "unknown unknowns."

Mr. Ashcroft refused to provide several of the memorandums, saying they amounted to confidential legal advice given the president and did not have to be shared with the Congress.

Asscrossed is risking a contempt-of-Congress slap with his flat-out refusal. "Confidential legal advice" might be relevant if Bush was under indictment or being sued as a private individual. However, in his capacity as a public official, legal advice proffered by the Justice Department can and should be considered relevant for public debate. I don't even buy the "executive privilege" claim. First, because Bush would have to invoke it personally (he can't LOAN it to the Attorney General, for chrissakes), and second, because goddamnit, "executive privilige" is nothing more than "the right of the king." Bush might THINK he is a king, given that he wasn't actually elected, but we still demand that chief executives ENFORCE THE LAWS, not set them aside.

The administration has responded to the memorandums by saying they were merely legal opinions offered at the beginning of formulating policies. Mr. Ashcroft said that "first of all, this administration opposes torture."

It's nice to know the administration officially opposes torture. Next thing you know, they'll come out in favor of freedom. And "merely legal opinions" is a pretty lame attempt to justify the subversion of the Constitution. It's also pretty stupid, when you consider how ready the administration was to invoke the Geneva Conventions last year when OUR soldiers became POW's (not to mention the fact that, today's hostage release notwithstanding, there are still plenty of folks, including a US serviceman, being held by factions within Iraq).

Speaking of lame, Asscrossed went on to squawk about war, and how it's not a good idea to debate presidential powers in the midst of such things. This is the last refuge of a scoundrel, as the saying goes.

But it's also true that people get the kind of government they deserve. If Asscrossed, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, et al, manage to somehow convince the public that THEY deserve a second term--well then, I'll certainly be looking into employment overseas. Because that will mean that the experiment in US democracy is over, and that enough of the public has become so alienated, disinterested, or otherwise out of it that I don't want to be considered part of such a society. Enough is enough.